Constitutional Law Commons^™

Procedural Due Process Claims, Erwin Chemerinsky

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Stop The Reach: Solving The Judicial Takings Problem By Objectively Defining Property, Steven C. Begakis

Notre Dame Law Review

The future of judicial takings may rest on the ability of the Court to define property in a robust and objective way. Property has essential characteristics that make it easily identifiable, the most significant of which are the rights to exclude and use. However, even when a property right does not fit within a neat categorical definition, should that right have a long, well established pedigree in state court precedent, that property right is similarly within the capacity of the reviewing court to identify. And once it is determined that, prior to the judgment, the petitioners possessed a clearly defined …

The Horne Dilemma: Protecting Property's Richness And Frontiers, Lynda L. Butler

Faculty Publications

In a 2015 decision, the Supreme Court concluded that real and personal property should not be treated differently under the Takings Clause and that a government condition requiring raisin growers, in certain years, to reserve a percentage of their crop for the government to manage in noncompetitive venues was a per se physical taking. The decision to treat both real and personal property as equally worthy of protection under the Takings Clause has merit given the weak historical evidence suggesting stronger protection for land and the importance of personal property to income generation and capital development in a modern society. …

Taking The Oceanfront Lot, Josh Eagle

Indiana Law Journal

Oceanfront landowners and states share a property boundary that runs between the wet and dry parts of the shore. This legal coastline is different from an ordinary land boundary. First, on sandy beaches, the line is constantly in flux, and it cannot be marked except momentarily. Without the help of a surveyor and a court, neither the landowner nor a citizen walking down the beach has the ability to know exactly where the line lies. This uncertainty means that, as a practical matter, ownership of some part of the beach is effectively shared. Second, the common law establishes that the …

Taking The Oceanfront Lot, Josh Eagle

Faculty Publications

Oceanfront landowners and states share a property boundary located between the wet and dry parts of the shore. This legal coastline is different from an ordinary land boundary. First, on sandy beaches, the line is constantly in flux, and it cannot be marked except momentarily. Without the help of a surveyor and a court, neither the landowner nor a citizen walking down the beach has the ability to know exactly where the line lies. This uncertainty means that, as a practical matter, ownership of some part of the beach is effectively shared. Second, the common law establishes that the owner …

Taking Patents, Gregory Dolin, Irena D. Manta

Washington and Lee Law Review

The America Invents Act (AIA) was widely hailed as a remedy to the excessive number of patents that the Patent & Trademark Office issued, and especially ones that would later turn out to be invalid. In its efforts to eradicate “patent trolls” and fend off other ills, however, the AIA introduced serious constitutional problems that this Article brings to the fore. We argue that the AIA’s new “second-look” mechanisms in the form of Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Covered Business Method Review (CBMR) have greatly altered the scope of vested patent rights by modifying the boundaries of existing patents. The …

Appraising 9/11: 'Sacred' Value And Heritage In Neoliberal Times, Mateo Taussig-Rubbo

Journal Articles

On September 11, 2001, United Airlines Flight 93 — one of the four airplanes hijacked that day — crashed into a vacant parcel of land in rural Pennsylvania, killing all on board. For many, including family members of those killed in the attack and the Park Service that now manages the national memorial at the site, the former strip mine was transformed into ‘sacred’ ground. Unable to settle on a price with the landowner, in 2009 the government took the property through eminent domain. Focusing on the ongoing effort in United States of America v. 275.81 Acres of Land to …

The Brooding Omnipresence Of Regulatory Takings: Urban Origins And Effects, Michael Allan Wolf

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Effect Of Rluipa’S Land Use Provisions On Local Governments, Alan C. Weinstein

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Occupy The Parks: Restoring The Right To Overnight Protest In Public Parks, Udi Ofer

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Rluipa: Necessary, Modest, And Under-Enforced, Douglas Laycock, Luke W. Goodrich

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Rluipa Is A Bridge Too Far: Inconvenience Is Not Discrimination, Marci A. Hamilton

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Strange Career Of Private Takings Of Private Property For Private Use, Jan G. Laitos

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Part I summarizes the two private entities thattraditionally have been conferred the power to take private property for their own private use: (1) natural resource developers and (2) common carriers involved in, andresponsible for, our country’s transportation, storage, and distribution (TS&D) system for energy infrastructure—pipelines, electrical transmission lines, and rail lines. Part II considers the traditional rationale for those private takings, which typically relies on some version ofthe notion thatthe public atlarge may, or will, eventually benefit from this private exercise of eminent domain. Part III explores the four central problems associated with these kinds of private takings: (1) the …

When Scalia Wasn't Such An Originalist, Michael Lewyn

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fixing Fuller: Securing Just Compensation For Private Beneficiaries Of Federal Grazing Lands, Matthew C. Piccolo

Buffalo Environmental Law Journal

No abstract provided.

When Scalia Wasn't Such An Originalist, Michael Lewyn

Scholarly Works

Although Justice Scalia generally described himself as an originalist, his opinion in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council rejected originalist arguments. Why? This article suggests that pre-Lucas precedent and the ambiguity of the historical record might justify his methodology.

2015 Survey Of Rhode Island Law: Cases And Public Laws Of Note, Roger Williams University Law Review Staff

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fritz V. Washoe County, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 57 (Aug. 4, 2016), Jessie Folkestad

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

This case involved the question of whether a counties’ approval of subdivision maps and street dedications which included a drainage system constituted inverse condemnation where the plaintiff’s property flooded as a result. The Supreme Court of Nevada adopted a six part element test for inverse condemnation, and determined that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the County’s actions constituted substantial involvement in the drainage system sufficient to deem it public use.

Emergency Takings, Brian Lee

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Liberty At The Borders Of Private Law, Donald J. Smythe

Akron Law Review

Liberty is both dependent upon and limited by the State. The State protects individuals from the coercion of others, but paradoxically, it must exercise coercion itself in doing so. Unfortunately, the reliance on the State to deter coercion raises the possibility that the State’s powers of coercion might be abused. There is, not surprisingly, therefore, a wide range of literature on the relationship between law and liberty, but most of it focuses on the relationship between public law and liberty. This Article focuses on the relationship between private law and liberty. Private laws are enforced by courts. Since the judiciary …

The Water Cycle Boogie: Clean Water Act Jurisdiction, Home Rule, And Water Law, Colin W. Maguire

Et Cetera

The EPA and US Army Corps of Engineers’ agency rule regarding the definition of “Waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act increased jurisdictional assertions by as much as 5%. What’s the big deal? This violates the Home Rule of state and local governments. This violation also creates concerns where many property owners are not sure if they need federal permits to develop land under the Clean Water Act. With issues like this new Clean Water Act rule, the drought conditions in the Western U.S., and international concerns regarding fresh water, water law is a critical area which …

I'M In The Pursuit Of Your Property: How The Government Disguises A Taking, Amanda Miller

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Private Property, The Takings Clause And The Pursuit Of Market Gain, Charles H. Clarke

Akron Law Review

This Article proposes a fair return model for the takings clause. This conception of the clause has been an operating principle of welfare capitalism for decades. The Article rejects the model of laissez faire capitalism that once dominated the landscape of the nation's constitutional system and may come back again.

The Politics Of The Takings Clauses, Mila Versteeg

Northwestern University Law Review

A long-standing consensus exists that the arbitrary or excessive expropriation of private property by a country hurts its economic growth. Although constitutions can play an important role in protecting private property, remarkably little is known about how they actually restrict the power of eminent domain and whether such restrictions are associated with reduced de facto expropriation risks. This Essay fills that gap by presenting original data on the procedural and substantive protections in constitutional takings clauses from 1946 to 2013. Its main finding is that no observable relationship exists between de jure constitutional restrictions on the power of eminent domain …

Protecting Sacred Ground: The San Manuel Ruling And Implications For Indian Cultural Resource Preservation, Gray O'Dwyer

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

Six hundred years ago, all land in America was Indian land.1 Then,"[Europe] conducted some of her adventurous sons into this western world.., and discovery gave title... [which] could be consummated by possession."2 This "doctrine of discovery," agreed upon between colonial powers, essentially granted title to anyone who could occupy American soil. Europeans quickly scrambled to negotiate peace treaties with native tribes so that they could install settlers and thereby claim territory. The inherent problems with these treaties were numerous; beyond conflicting interests,3 outright fraud,4 and language barriers, the terms of transfer were inherently invalid because the government that was taking …

A Half-Baked Law: How The Supreme Court's Decision In Koontz V. St. Johns River Water Management District Misses A Key Ingredient To Fifth Amendment Protection, Garrett W. Messerly

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Factual Reality Of Koontz V. St. Johns, Eric Dean Hageman

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

The Court’s opinion in Koontz has elicited many negative reactions in academia, most of which focus on the expansion of Nollan and Dolan to monetary exactions. Criticisms run the gamut: some scholars argue that the Court was wrong to ignore the environmental impact of land developments, while others suggest the Court gave the same consideration too much credence. These criticisms are likely premature and necessarily speculative, since the Court decided the case less than two years ago.

Scholars have scrutinized this case’s factual and procedural history less closely, and those elements may justify the Court’s holding. Two often-overlooked facts are …

Using Historic Preservation Laws To Halt The Destruction Of Porch Culture In The Lower Ninth Ward Of New Orleans, Jamila Jefferson-Jones

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

Horne V. Usda: The Takings Clause, The Commerce Clause, And The "World's Most Outdated Law", Thomas E. Travis

Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture, & Natural Resources Law

No abstract provided.

Emergency Takings, Brian Angelo Lee

Michigan Law Review

Takings law has long contained a puzzle. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the government to pay “just compensation” to owners of private property that the government “takes.” In ordinary circumstances, this requirement applies equally whether the property is confiscated or destroyed, and it also applies to property confiscated in emergencies. Remarkably, however, courts have repeatedly held that if the government destroys property to address an emergency, then a “necessity exception” relieves the government of any obligation to compensate the owner of the property that was sacrificed for the public good. Although the roots of this startling principle …